In my life as a believer in Christ, I have often been faced with the difficulties of sharing my faith with people I come in contact with. Conflicts with time, answering several questions at once, or unintentionally relating the wrong ideas, are only a few of the difficulties.
Some close friends and I finally made a decision to share some Christian standpoints in a more approachable and complete manner. We are hoping Sackcloth & Ashes will shed light ( or at least clear the mist ) on various personal or philosophical problems concerning Christianity.
In no particular order, issue #1 will consist of poetry, quotes, and insights. We also encourage you to send any comments, questions, or suggestions you may have pertaining to Sackcloth & Ashes. Mail comments, questions, suggestions or threats to:
Sackcloth & Ashes P.O. Box 9093 Rochester MN, 55903
And in each and every province where the command and decree of the king came, there was great mourning amoung the Jews, with fasting, weeping and wailing; and many lay on sackcloth and ashes.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Choice?
Perhaps no other debate in the last 20 years has generated as much rhetoric, as much slogan shouting, as much intentional misdirection as the abortion debate. For most the issue is already decided. Both those who favor the free availability of abortion, and those who would prohibit it entirely, are certain they are, without any doubt, completely and blatantly in the right. Why then do I undertake to further obfuscate the debate? Who could I hope to win over to my side? By shear weight of my argument probably no one. Especially when you consider the publication limits of my medium. Yet in the hope that one person may be swayed, here goes.
Perhaps we could start by clearing up some terms. There are those who would prohibit or greatly restrict abortions. They are then, anti abortion. To say they are pro life only ads a misleading title to an obvious position. There are also those who feel that abortions should be generally available to anyone who wants one. Though they might not choose an abortion for themselves they generally favor the availability of abortions. Though they are often called pro choice the choice they want available is abortion. They are pro abortion. The inutero by-product of pregnancy is not what most people think of as a baby. It is clearly in a different stage of development. On the other hand, to simply call it a pregnancy by-product does not differentiate between that tissue which after a live birth is referred to as a baby and the placenta or other tissues which are discarded as waste by those on either side of the debate. The fetus is the bit of tissue that the debate centers on.
The whole debate is in fact somewhat moot if the centrality of the fetus is overlooked. While one side cries "murder" the other side cries "totalitarian". Yet both sides appeal ( as Sackcloth asserts in his article ) to a sense of right and wrong which is more similar than different. Both sides feel that the taking of an innocent human life is wrong. Both sides feel that the state should not interfere in maters as personal as procreation except to prevent some great evil. ( Over population choking the life out of our planet or the less dramatic case of preventing inbreeding to decrease the likelihood of birth defects caused by defective recessive genes being examples that come to mind. ) If in fact the fetus is simply unwanted human tissue not unlike a wart or a tumor or, as in my case, excess fat cells, then the premisses of both sides would allow that rights as important as control over our own reproductive processes far outweigh any right my wart might have to exist. On the other hand, the taking of an individual human life is sanctioned only under the greatest compunction by those on either side of the debate. If the fetus is an individual human being it's death is a far greater tragedy than someone else's temporary loss of reproductive freedom. If
...
If...
If...
This is the beginning of the debate. It is also the end of this article. Look into it yourself. The data on what a fetus is can be readily found.
Perhaps we could start by clearing up some terms. There are those who would prohibit or greatly restrict abortions. They are then, anti abortion. To say they are pro life only ads a misleading title to an obvious position. There are also those who feel that abortions should be generally available to anyone who wants one. Though they might not choose an abortion for themselves they generally favor the availability of abortions. Though they are often called pro choice the choice they want available is abortion. They are pro abortion. The inutero by-product of pregnancy is not what most people think of as a baby. It is clearly in a different stage of development. On the other hand, to simply call it a pregnancy by-product does not differentiate between that tissue which after a live birth is referred to as a baby and the placenta or other tissues which are discarded as waste by those on either side of the debate. The fetus is the bit of tissue that the debate centers on.
The whole debate is in fact somewhat moot if the centrality of the fetus is overlooked. While one side cries "murder" the other side cries "totalitarian". Yet both sides appeal ( as Sackcloth asserts in his article ) to a sense of right and wrong which is more similar than different. Both sides feel that the taking of an innocent human life is wrong. Both sides feel that the state should not interfere in maters as personal as procreation except to prevent some great evil. ( Over population choking the life out of our planet or the less dramatic case of preventing inbreeding to decrease the likelihood of birth defects caused by defective recessive genes being examples that come to mind. ) If in fact the fetus is simply unwanted human tissue not unlike a wart or a tumor or, as in my case, excess fat cells, then the premisses of both sides would allow that rights as important as control over our own reproductive processes far outweigh any right my wart might have to exist. On the other hand, the taking of an individual human life is sanctioned only under the greatest compunction by those on either side of the debate. If the fetus is an individual human being it's death is a far greater tragedy than someone else's temporary loss of reproductive freedom. If
...
If...
If...
This is the beginning of the debate. It is also the end of this article. Look into it yourself. The data on what a fetus is can be readily found.
Ethical Base
"Why should you shove in first?"- "How would you like it if someone did the same to you?"- "Come on, you promised."- "Give me some of your candy, I gave you some of mine." This is common to every ear as well as every mouth. What is uncommon is that this simple quarrelling can be a clue to the meaning of our existance. The accuser seems to be appealing to, or measuring by, a standard of behavior that (s)he expects the other to know. What would be the sense in this unless both had an agreement as to what the rules are? The accuser is not merely saying the other person's behavior is not pleasing. If right and wrong is simply preference ( like prefering beer over cider), calling a foul would lose validity. Suppose the quarrelling continued. We would hear the accused rationalize that (s)he is, in fact, adhereing to this standard; or that in his/her particular case it has been suspended. Very rarely will the accused reply: " To hell with your standard." Quarrelling , therefore, must be under the assumption that this standard of behavior is a real thing that ought to be practised.
If, while reading this, you notice yourself disagreeing with me, are you not measuring me by the standard of behavior that truth is a thing that I ought to practise? We begin to see the direction this is pointing. When anyone quarrels they appeal to something or someone that exists apart from themselves and their situation.
How can this be a clue to the meaning of our existance? Well, perhaps there does exist a bird's eye-view of the human situation; an actual living standard that knows what our right and our wrong is. This would justify appealing to it and give quarrelling more validity than mere representation of taste. Could it be that our moral ideas are more a reflection of a source than a reflection of an accident? What, or whom might this source be?
If, while reading this, you notice yourself disagreeing with me, are you not measuring me by the standard of behavior that truth is a thing that I ought to practise? We begin to see the direction this is pointing. When anyone quarrels they appeal to something or someone that exists apart from themselves and their situation.
How can this be a clue to the meaning of our existance? Well, perhaps there does exist a bird's eye-view of the human situation; an actual living standard that knows what our right and our wrong is. This would justify appealing to it and give quarrelling more validity than mere representation of taste. Could it be that our moral ideas are more a reflection of a source than a reflection of an accident? What, or whom might this source be?
Fun with Formgeschichte
Formgeschichte is a method of higher criticism invented by a German guy who liked to coin new words. It involves the critical analysis of a text of questionable authorship. It is assumed that by noting such things as vocabulary, sentence structure, topics, themes and underlying concepts one can ascertain who the authors were and whether or not later revisions were made.
Though it has been applied to other literature as well, it is most commonly used to examine Biblical literature. The form critic attempts to remove what he sees as adulterations of the text and thereby arrive at a writing which more accurately depicts the thoughts of the original author. By removing bits that seem "unauthentic" the basis of our theology can change and morality becomes more fluid than absolute. Applying formgeschichte to a stop sign however could get you killed. Formgeschechte is not to be confused with the related discipline bullgeschichte even though at times the distinction seems a bit blurry.
The task at hand is to determine as much as you can about the authors of Sackcloth and Ashes. How many are there? What (if any) is their education level? What was edited in after the original author wrote the article? What was edited out? Were any of them former chicken ranchers from Arkansas?
Mail your entry to:
Sackcloth and Ashes
PO Box 9093
Rochester, MN 55903
The winner will receive future issues of Sackcloth and Ashes absolutely free (if she or he can find any lying about somewhere unclaimed.) Results will be published in a later issue if anyone gets around to it.
Though it has been applied to other literature as well, it is most commonly used to examine Biblical literature. The form critic attempts to remove what he sees as adulterations of the text and thereby arrive at a writing which more accurately depicts the thoughts of the original author. By removing bits that seem "unauthentic" the basis of our theology can change and morality becomes more fluid than absolute. Applying formgeschichte to a stop sign however could get you killed. Formgeschechte is not to be confused with the related discipline bullgeschichte even though at times the distinction seems a bit blurry.
The task at hand is to determine as much as you can about the authors of Sackcloth and Ashes. How many are there? What (if any) is their education level? What was edited in after the original author wrote the article? What was edited out? Were any of them former chicken ranchers from Arkansas?
Mail your entry to:
Sackcloth and Ashes
PO Box 9093
Rochester, MN 55903
The winner will receive future issues of Sackcloth and Ashes absolutely free (if she or he can find any lying about somewhere unclaimed.) Results will be published in a later issue if anyone gets around to it.
THE HAPPY CONFLAGRATION
What happens to those who try to
warn the present age?
It happened that a fire broke out
backstage in a theater. The clown
came out to inform the public.
They thought is was just a jest
and applauded. He repeated his
warning, they shouted even
louder. So I think the world will
come to an end amid general
applause from all the wits, who
believe that it is a joke.
-Kierkegaard
warn the present age?
It happened that a fire broke out
backstage in a theater. The clown
came out to inform the public.
They thought is was just a jest
and applauded. He repeated his
warning, they shouted even
louder. So I think the world will
come to an end amid general
applause from all the wits, who
believe that it is a joke.
-Kierkegaard
Heresy of the Month
If you are humor-impared or faciciously-challenged, please read the Disclaimer at the end before proceding.
Don't you hate it when someone you know comes up with some new thing that you have never heard about? You sit there in apparent ignorance as they pontificate about the proofs and merits of some idea so far beyond common knowledge that it can only be revealed by people of exceptional enlightenment such as they. Well now you have recourse! You can baffle your friends. Impress the opposite sex. It can be easily accomplished by joining the Heresy of the Month Club!
Imagine the deep sense of satisfaction you can feel the next time a Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door. When he says, "Have you heard about Jehovah's kingdom?"
You confidently reply, "Of course. But have you heard about the Church of the Leaner Day Saints?"
Invite him in and you become the one with the higher knowledge benevolently leading him down the path of truth. And you got it here, before anyone else, at Heresy of the Month!
This month's heresy, The Church of the Leaner Day Saints, finds it's origin in a rather creative interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14.
"Enter ye in at the straight gate: For wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Yes, even Jesus himself, was known to be a thin person. How else could you get through that narrow gate? Jesus criticized the obese pharisees who were too fat to wear normal clothes.
"But all their works they do to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the boarders of their garments." Matthew 23:5
Consider the deep and profound symbolism of the dream of Pharaoh recorded in Genesis 41:1-7. Pharaoh sees 7 fat cows followed by 7 lean cows. The lean ones eat the fat ones. Then he sees 7 fat ears of grain followed by 7 lean ears of grain. The lean consumes the fat. This is symbolic literature. Both the animal world and the vegetable world are included. This signifies the totality of God's condemnation of fat. The consuming doesn't mean that we are to eat fat people. It rather refers to the tendency we all have to consume what we love. This very thing was pointed out by Sigmund Freud and is intrinsically tied up in our subconscious desires to still be breast fed. Though we still love those who have fallen into the error of gluttony, we who are called of God to walk the narrow path must not fall into the same pit of obesity, for the fat are to be destroyed and the lean will prevail. Is it any wonder that Leviticus 4:31 says, "And he shall take away all the fat thereof"
The truth can more clearly be seen by critical analysis of some texts such as Leviticus 1:12 If one accounts for the obvious redactor's comment added between the words head and fat and corrects for the author's dyslexia then, "with his head and his fat" becomes, "with his fat head" which the author then instructs the reader to lay on the alter and cut to peaces.
But how, you may ask, is one to achieve this gaunt and salvific state? The answer can be found in Philipians 2:12: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
So we are to work out. But what type of exercise is best for entering that narrow gate? Certainly not weight training. Muscle bound meat heads could never fit in. Look at Ezekiel 34:16.
"I will destroy the fat and the strong."
The scripture recommends running for that sevete look. Hebrews `12:1 states that we should lay aside every weight and run with patience.
Now you have the inside scoop. You are the enlightened one. Memorize these verses and you can astound anyone who hasn't read the Bible because they think it can't be understood. Be careful however not to read whole books of the Bible as a unit. That type of knowledge can be rightly interpreted only by super spiritually enlightened people, such as we here at Heresy of the Month.
Disclaimer
Any similarities between the heresies found in Heresy of the Month and ones that someone else made up are purely accidental except for where it is intentionl. We refuse liability for the final resting place of the soul of anyone adhering to any of these beliefs; so if you end up in hell you can't sue us (even though you would have a lot of lawyers there with you who would take the case on a percentage.) Beliefs found in Heresy of the Month are not endorsed by Sackcloth and Ashes.
Don't you hate it when someone you know comes up with some new thing that you have never heard about? You sit there in apparent ignorance as they pontificate about the proofs and merits of some idea so far beyond common knowledge that it can only be revealed by people of exceptional enlightenment such as they. Well now you have recourse! You can baffle your friends. Impress the opposite sex. It can be easily accomplished by joining the Heresy of the Month Club!
Imagine the deep sense of satisfaction you can feel the next time a Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door. When he says, "Have you heard about Jehovah's kingdom?"
You confidently reply, "Of course. But have you heard about the Church of the Leaner Day Saints?"
Invite him in and you become the one with the higher knowledge benevolently leading him down the path of truth. And you got it here, before anyone else, at Heresy of the Month!
This month's heresy, The Church of the Leaner Day Saints, finds it's origin in a rather creative interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14.
"Enter ye in at the straight gate: For wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Yes, even Jesus himself, was known to be a thin person. How else could you get through that narrow gate? Jesus criticized the obese pharisees who were too fat to wear normal clothes.
"But all their works they do to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the boarders of their garments." Matthew 23:5
Consider the deep and profound symbolism of the dream of Pharaoh recorded in Genesis 41:1-7. Pharaoh sees 7 fat cows followed by 7 lean cows. The lean ones eat the fat ones. Then he sees 7 fat ears of grain followed by 7 lean ears of grain. The lean consumes the fat. This is symbolic literature. Both the animal world and the vegetable world are included. This signifies the totality of God's condemnation of fat. The consuming doesn't mean that we are to eat fat people. It rather refers to the tendency we all have to consume what we love. This very thing was pointed out by Sigmund Freud and is intrinsically tied up in our subconscious desires to still be breast fed. Though we still love those who have fallen into the error of gluttony, we who are called of God to walk the narrow path must not fall into the same pit of obesity, for the fat are to be destroyed and the lean will prevail. Is it any wonder that Leviticus 4:31 says, "And he shall take away all the fat thereof"
The truth can more clearly be seen by critical analysis of some texts such as Leviticus 1:12 If one accounts for the obvious redactor's comment added between the words head and fat and corrects for the author's dyslexia then, "with his head and his fat" becomes, "with his fat head" which the author then instructs the reader to lay on the alter and cut to peaces.
But how, you may ask, is one to achieve this gaunt and salvific state? The answer can be found in Philipians 2:12: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
So we are to work out. But what type of exercise is best for entering that narrow gate? Certainly not weight training. Muscle bound meat heads could never fit in. Look at Ezekiel 34:16.
"I will destroy the fat and the strong."
The scripture recommends running for that sevete look. Hebrews `12:1 states that we should lay aside every weight and run with patience.
Now you have the inside scoop. You are the enlightened one. Memorize these verses and you can astound anyone who hasn't read the Bible because they think it can't be understood. Be careful however not to read whole books of the Bible as a unit. That type of knowledge can be rightly interpreted only by super spiritually enlightened people, such as we here at Heresy of the Month.
Disclaimer
Any similarities between the heresies found in Heresy of the Month and ones that someone else made up are purely accidental except for where it is intentionl. We refuse liability for the final resting place of the soul of anyone adhering to any of these beliefs; so if you end up in hell you can't sue us (even though you would have a lot of lawyers there with you who would take the case on a percentage.) Beliefs found in Heresy of the Month are not endorsed by Sackcloth and Ashes.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Intro
Sackcloth & Ashes was a satire site which a friend and I found both edifying and funny. It basically disappeared form the face of the internet and we thought we had lost this great resource. Thanks to the Wayback machine, all is not lost and here the original articles will be reproduced for others to enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)