Josiah Concept Ministries

**WARNING: Irony ahead!**

Using the same standards that skeptics apply to the Bible, I have concluded that Canadian singer Bryan Adams is a cannibal. There is no other plausible answer to the dilemma skeptics’ standards.

This shocking truth dawned on me today when I was at work, and I heard the song “Have You Ever Loved a Woman.” Here is a snippet from the foul, disgusting lyrics:

To really love a woman,
Let her hold you,
Till you know how she needs to be touched.
You’ve got to breathe her, really taste her,
Till you can feel her in your blood.
And when you see your unborn children in her eyes …
You know you really love a woman.

Notice the boldfaced portions–ignore the rest of the context. The only way to truly understand something is to isolate it from its context and read it hyper-literally with no regard to accepted literary devices. Doing that, there is only one way to understand “tast[ing] her” and “feeling her in blood”–Mr. Adams must be referring to eating her.

Since this line appears in a romantic love song, one can only conclude that Mr. Adams finds this practice loving and romantic. Therefore, the only way that a man can show love to a woman–in Mr. Adams’s sick and twisted world–is to eat her.

Some people will argue that Mr. Adams is speaking metaphorically.  But I see no reason to conclude that.  And even if he is, he is still hinting at cannibalism, which is disgusting any way you slice it.

Some may further object that I’ve used circular reasoning.  First, I ignore context, then I place the snippet into its broad context.  But that doesn’t matter much, either.  This is the same way that skeptics read the Bible, so it must be correct.  Just look at the disgusting John 6–this verse also talks about the same wretched practice of cannibalism.

It is only fair.  If you apply one standard to the Bible, you should be able to apply it to everything.  So the conclusion is absolutely inescapable: Bryan Adams is a cannibal.  We must organize a boycott of his music immediately until he renounces this horrid practice.

I’m not normally one to give the atheists credit when they come up with another God-denigrating parody of Christmas, but this one is just too funny not to post:

Yeah, I laughed out loud.  I’m a Christian science geek.

(HT to Hemnant from The Friendly Atheist)

Religious scholars are meeting this weekend to discuss the pseudo-deity known as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. According to Wikipedia, FSM was created in 2005 by physics major Bobby Henderson in order to protest the teaching of intelligent design in Kansas classrooms. Since its wide media exposure, the FSM is used by atheists and agnostics alike to discredit the existence of God.

The American Academy of Religion has a few talks on its plate (no pun intended) about the Noodly Master. The graduate students giving the talks, Samuel Snyder, Alyssa Beall, and Gavin Van Horn, insist that this carbohydrate creator raises serious questions about the origin and practice of religion.

In other words, are religions based on theology or on practices? Most atheists would argue that religion is only a method to control behavior. They point to made-up religions like pastafarianism as a way to make this point. Richard Dawkins refers to it in The God Delusion, and frequently in debates.

So what are the grad students’ conclusions? I guess we’ll have to wait for the papers to be published. I just think that this lends far too much credence to a phenomenon that already has too much attention.

Dr. William Lane Craig agrees with that:

I think you can see that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is vastly overrated, both as a parody and as a being. As a parody, he fails to show that an inference to an intelligent designer of the universe is either illegitimate or unwarranted. What the parody shows is that we are not justified in attributing to our explanatory postulates arbitrary properties that are not justified by the evidence. Natural theologians have always known this. That’s why, for example, Thomas Aquinas, after his five brief paragraphs in his Summa theologiae proving the existence of a being “to which everyone gives the name ‘God’,” goes on to discuss in the next nine questions God’s simplicity, perfection, goodness, limitlessness, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, and unity.

As a being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes up drastically deficient as an explanation of those phenomena, some of which you list, which lie at the basis of the arguments for God’s existence. Those arguments, if all sound, as I think they are, require cumulatively a being which is the metaphysically necessary, self-existent, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, omnipotent, omniscient Creator and Designer of the universe, who is perfectly good, whose nature is the standard of goodness, and whose commands constitute our moral duties.

The real lesson to be learned from the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that it shows how completely out of touch our popular culture is with the great tradition of natural theology.  (source)

Gene Bridges turned down the debate because Dave didn’t send him a notice by e-mail. He had to Google search to find the challenge on his own blog.

Saint & Sinner turned down the debate because he’s already doing an extended critique of Dave’s book, The Catholic Verses.

TurretinFan deferred the debate  because Dave changed his mind one too many times on the terms, and couldn’t even decide if he (Dave) was going to debate as a Roman Catholic or not.

Even though I am announcing that I’m turning the debate down today, it seems that DA had made the announcement for me Thursday-ish. Either Dave now possesses exhaustive divine foreknowledge, or he jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. I’m guessing the latter.

Even though I created a thread expressly for the DA debate challenge, Dave continued to post notes about it in my blog entry on the celebration of atheist women. He continued to accuse me of saying that Catholics aren’t Christians, which is something that I have never asserted.

I, like Gene, am a little miffed that DA didn’t contact me by e-mail, when my address is the easiest of the whole group to locate: top left corner of my blog. So, along with everyone else, I am rejecting Dave’s Debate Challenge. Even though Dave already did that a few days back for me.

After I wrote this, I got to thinking that my post, “Celebration of Atheist Women,” is out of step with what I have written in this lengthy refutation.  In other words, I have just said that others should step lightly on sarcasm in regard to outsiders, when I have failed to live up to that ideal.  The post that resided here was nothing but sarcasm, directed mainly at Nicole Smallkowski and Kelly from RRS. This only makes me a hypocrite if I defend my own use of it while condemning other people who use it.  I would also be guilty of using “special pleading,” a logical fallacy that many Christians like to fall back on.  I will make no effort to defend the practice when used by anyone–even me–toward an outsider.

But I can’t undo what has already been done.  All I can do is admit that I was wrong for posting what I did, and then move forward taking care to not repeat the same mistake.

I have re-opened the comments section, if anyone would like to take a mean swipe at me.  I will follow Jesus’ advice in Matthew 5:39.

There are several notable difficulties in replying to Dave Armstrong, not the least of which being his uncanny ability to ramble on and on about nothing in particular. The fluff in his posts is absolutely unreal.

In responding to his argument that the Vicar of Christ is not a blasphemous title, I have come across a gross example of fluff. DA claims that “disciple” and “vicar” are “not far in meaning” from each other.

Looking at the same dictionary entry that DA was using, Merriam-Webster online, we can see that the definition of “vicar” is as follows:

1: one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy2: an ecclesiastical agent: as a: a Church of England incumbent receiving a stipend but not the tithes of a parish b: a member of the Episcopal clergy or laity who has charge of a mission or chapel c: a member of the clergy who exercises a broad pastoral responsibility as the representative of a prelate (source)

The definition of “disciple” is as follows:

1: one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another: as a: one of the twelve in the inner circle of Christ’s followers according to the Gospel accounts b: a convinced adherent of a school or individual 2capitalized : a member of the Disciples of Christ founded in the United States in 1809 that holds the Bible alone to be the rule of faith and practice, usually baptizes by immersion, and has a congregational polity (source)

These two words have nothing in common. A disciple is someone who is a convinced pupil of another, while a vicar is someone who shares in the authority of a prelate. They are different concepts and I hardly see any similarity between the two.

But this is the type of fluff that becomes a convincing argument in DA’s mind. This is one example of the voluminous chaff through which a person responding to Mr. Armstrong must sort to get to the meat of the argument.

Words in English are precise, and are chosen to convey something specific. No convergence was ever meant or implied between the words “vicar” and “disciple.” Dave needs to head to the book store and get himself a copy of On Writing Well by William Zinsser and carefully read the chapters on Simplicity, Clutter, and Words before he constructs his next “paper.”

This is the strangest TV wedding I have ever watched. I’ve seen it so many times, but it still makes me laugh every time. Joey really bungles the entire ceremony. But that’s just his character.

I posted this video because of a recent news item I read on people I call “Internet ministers.” I don’t know if that is the official name for these guys, but I’ll define the term now so that there is no confusion.  There are many organizations that offer ordination to anyone who applies for it.  No seminary education is necessary.  No training is necessary.  In fact, in many cases, you need not affirm even the basic doctrinal statements of the church (assuming that they even have one).  Like me, I figure that some people would see the sideline plot in season 7 of Friends where Joey is ordained online and then is able to perform Monica and Chandler’s wedding (and later, Phoebe and Mike’s wedding) and assume that it was only for TV.  Not the case at all.

In fact, this is a real thing that some people do.  Churches that exist only online offer ordination to anyone who applies (some ordinations are guaranteed,  while others stipulate some minimal and simple prerequisites).

Now, however, some of the weddings that have been performed by the so-called Internet ministers are being ruled as invalid by judges.  The officiator, according to the court, was not legally accredited as a person who solemnizes marriages.  That means the marriage isn’t valid, and thus the couple needs to go no further with divorce proceedings.  They aren’t married.

Had the show Friends continued, it would now be in its 13th season.  Monica and Chandler would be celebrating their sixth anniversary.  Almost time for that seven-year itch to kick in.  Maybe they introduce a love interest at Chandler’s office.  Then, Monica and Chandler find out that Joey’s ordination wasn’t legal, and thus, their marriage is not valid.

Time for the new love interest to swoop in.  Does she get Chandler?  Or does Monica win (again)?

What problems could this cause for Phoebe and Mike?  Remember that Mike never wanted to get married in the first place.  Maybe he’s unhappy and can walk away.  Time for David the scientist guy to reappear!

What if Joey had married Ross and Rachel?  I don’t think it would shake those two up a bit.  They’ve already been through enough together.  They would just get remarried after taking the news in stride.

It looks like we’ll never know the answers to these questions.  There isn’t a virtual seasons project for Friends on the web.

These are the kind of posts that happen when bloggers stay up late and get slap happy!  Don’t let this happen to you.  Go to bed at a reasonable hour.

Although this lawsuit is filed with a specific political agenda in mind, it is interesting for its theological considerations as well.

I thought that I’d take a moment to ruminate on the possibility of actually suing God and winning. The reason is that, by necessity, I have been studying the philosophical aspects of the Trinity in order to write a much more serious article in response to Dave Armstrong than this humorous and philosophically entertaining one. The primary concept that I’ve been looking into is perichoresis–the inherent coexistence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and their indwelling within the elect. It is this indwelling that creates God’s omnipresence. This lawsuit states that, since God is omnipresent, He is therefore present in Douglas county (which is the venue of the suit).

That is very true. God created the universe, so He is not contained by it. In fact, the universe is contained within Him, and it is in Him that the universe takes its identity and in Him that the universe finds its being. He is the only reality, our reality is only at His will and pleasure. As a result, to borrow a simpler way of putting it from my brother-in-law Nate, “God is the only reality, and we are ‘less real’ by comparison.” Truly, we can only define ourselves in relation to Him.

This is God’s Sovereignty. The Bible makes it clear that we derive everything from Him (Gen 1:26): our identity, our dominion of land and animals, our likenesses. Everything was His first, and He gifted some of it to us. As I’ve often said, “We owe Him everything; He owes us nothing.”

So, if He is the perfection that we aspire to become but cannot attain, if He is the only way by which we can define ourselves and the Ultimate Cause of Everything, how are we able to properly obtain an injunction against that which is His divine work? More importantly, how could this injunction possibly be enforced?

We are gifted with a limited sovereignty over God’s creation–He gifted that to us. He defined the relationship we have to the rest of the earth, and we use His Ultimate Sovereignty as the model for the limited sovereignty He gave us. The point is that He is the One who defines these rules–in fact, our laws are only a model of the divine laws He gave us in His word, the Bible. We don’t just exist because of Him, the way we live is defined in relation to Him.

He shouldn’t be subject to our laws or even our ideals of Him. Doing so is trying to contain Him. But we don’t contain God, He contains us while penetrating and surrounding us–that is the essence of perichoresis (which, according to Wikipedia, is Greek for “envelope”). This model of creation is derived from the Trinity itself: each member of the Trinity surrounds, penetrates, and contains each other member. All are God, and God is all. But each has a unique ministry that the others are present and take active roles in as a consequence and extension of their identity as a Trinity. This is the same way creation is expressed: God is in and through all of it as a consequence of His identity as God, the creator, container, and sustainer of this all.

It is as beautiful as it is mysterious, and it gives me a greater sense of wonder as I worship God, my Creator (Father), my Savior (Son), and my Helper and Comforter (Holy Spirit).

It seems to me that Roman Catholic apologists build around a certain motif that I like to call personality cult apologetics.  The most obvious example is this article from Jimmy Akin, which at the time of writing has 796 comments.  Most of these comments are just people writing one or two lines of agreement with Akin’s post and a few “atta-boy” comments from the usual cast of JA.O regulars.  For Jimmy’s sake, I hope that TypePad manages comments better than WordPress, because I couldn’t even begin to imagine trying to sort through 796 new comments with the way WordPress handles them.

All of the comments were centered around James White and the graphics he posted with a humorous intent.  The comments served to prove Dr. White’s point that charity is severely lacking from that bank of the Tiber, however we on this side are expected to maintain this charity at all costs.

This issue is near and dear to my own heart right now because I’m the target of Dave Armstrong’s personality cult for my comment that Dave is misrepresenting what the “Vicar of Christ” title implies for the Pope.  My favorite, from Jordan Potter:

On which bank of the Tiber will I remain? The one that represents truth and doesn’t have to resort to name-calling and dishonesty . . .

Wonderful news! See you at the next Easter Vigil!

I read that twice yesterday and I didn’t get it.  I just got it when I re-read it today.  That’s actually funny.  I am so slow on the uptake sometimes.

Now here is where I have to give Dave some credit.  I got targeted by a hit-and-run guy not so very long ago who didn’t bother to read everything I wrote on a particular topic and started to go on and on to convince me of a point that I not only accepted, but articulated in a previous post.  Dave has read this post, and his commenters are (rightfully) all over it:

And my record remains unbroken. I have never– and I don’t mean almost never or 99.999% never and one or two exceptions–heard a former Catholic correctly articulate Catholic teaching. (Scott W.)

Then:

Oh, he’s a former Catholic turned anti-Catholic fundamentalist? No wonder he doesn’t accurately represent the content of the Catholic faith. (Jordan Potter again)

But my personal favorite in this set:

I forgot that I used to worship Diana and Isis. Whew! What a long strange trip it’s been! Pretty soon we’ll have all of the rest of the trillions of female-deity-worhippers in our ranks and then, watch out! (Mike Burgess)

Now I have a sense of humor.  And I can also admit when I’m wrong, and most of all, I can admit why I was wrong.  The statement to which they refer is not something I’ve ever (or would ever) teach if I were lucky enough to become an apologetics instructor.  I don’t even believe that I made such a glaring error, but there it is in print, so I said it.  I will own up to it, and I admit that I was wrong in making that statement.

I am ashamed of the reason why I made the statement: It was targeted at a specific person, whom I now regard as a false teacher, to impress upon her that I was on the “right side.”  Her opinion of the right side and my opinion of the right side, I now realize, are very different.  Incompatible, actually.

The person to whom I am referring will undoubtedly recognize herself if she still reads my blog, however I am confident that she has already guessed what I’m revealing.  I am shying away from using names or providing links because a very dear friend of mine almost wholly subscribes to this woman’s teaching.  I have no desire to alienate him again, which is why I have never said anything about this.

I, still relatively new to apologetics, wrote that post specifically because this false teacher accused me of being one primarily in light of this post where I express interest in reading Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth.  As this false teacher is very anti-Catholic, that post caused her great concern and so I wrote the very lame-brained post to calm her mind.

I stand behind the fact that there are saved people within the Catholic Church because of their faith in the sacrifice of the cross, not because of what the Church teaches.  In other words, they are saved in spite of what the Church teaches, not because of what the Church teaches.  The statement about Mary equating to goddess worship is not true, it never was, and I should never have expressed the sentiment.  It isn’t what I believe, and I have done the gospel a great disservice by voicing it.  And worse, I did it to advance a relationship with a false teacher.

I do not still communicate with her.  I spoke with her about my belief that salvation can occur within the Catholic Church, that regardless of whatever apostasy may be in it that God can and still does use it as a vehicle for salvation of His elect.  I pointed to my own grandparents as an example.  She expressed discontent with the notion that anyone could be saved within the Church, and that was the last time we spoke.

I’m fine with that.

But now that I’ve admitted to my mistake, I would like to return briefly to the idea of personality cult apologetics.  I seem to see much of it in the Roman Catholic apologetics circles.  It’s obvious with Jimmy Akin.  Less so, but still present, at Dave Armstrong’s blog.  I don’t think that Robert Sungenis has it anymore after putting out the book that argues that earth is the center of the solar system.  Gerry Matatics had to postpone his 300 city tour, so I don’t think that he has a personality cult.  I’m not so sure about Scott Hahn.

This personality cult apologetics takes the shape of the apologist making his claims on his blog, and then his commenters descend on the post and leave 40, 50, or 60 comments, most of which are just “atta-boy” comments or e-nods ™ of agreement.  This is unfortunately similar to what I see done on atheist discussion boards, such as the Rational Response Squad.  The mentality is certainly the same: the Rational Response Squad has won every debate they’ve ever been in.  Just ask them, and they’ll tell you it is so.  It’s the same thing with this crowd, except I haven’t seen anyone Catholics say “Ha, ha, you got pwned!” yet.

Maybe they’re waiting for the Pope to infallibly define a pronunciation for “pwned.”

Anyway, I digress.  I suppose that it is good that I don’t have a personality cult following me, or else I would have to start a campaign for better comment-handling in WordPress.  Because I assure you, if I ever wrote something that garnered 796 comments, I wouldn’t even be able to read half of them.

I suppose the bigger picture is, Do I want a personality cult?  Of course, I’ve always wanted to lead a cult.  It would be fun to be the unquestionable leader of a group of people.  I’d try to outdo King Solomon on wives and concubines.  Forget a tithe: I’d have people pay all of their life savings.

But now, I’m more than happy to let God be the center.  I’m periphery.  Soli Deo Gloria!